Biennial Objection #3: We are not Hierarchical

The Executive Committee's third objection states, "Southern Baptists are not hierarchical and therefore need to meet annually to discern the will of the messengers through God's leading to effectively and efficiently facilitate our cooperative mission endeavors to reach a lost and dying world with the Gospel of Jesus Christ."

The Executive Committee is exactly right when they declare, "Southern Baptists are not hierarchical", but their objection quickly goes astray when they write, "and therefore need to meet annually to discern the will of the messengers. . . ."

We were not hierarchical when we met on a Triennial basis, a biennial basis, or, theoretically, now. While this objection may initially sound compelling, it actually represents a category shift in argumentation.

Hierarchy is a function of who has ultimate authority in making decisions and how decisions are made, but it is not a function of how often decisions are made.

For example, a church with congregational polity that moves from quarterly business meetings to semi-annual meetings is not automatically accepting a change that introduces hierarchy. The messengers to the Convention, like the members of a local church, establish the parameters for the administration of the Convention through the approval of budgets, policies, and etc.

As long as the messengers have the same level of control over the same things they control now, and as long as they have the opportunity to call an emergency meeting to address a legitimate crisis or breach of authority, a biennial meeting does not introduce hierarchy at all.

In the life of the SBC, a primary instrument that the messengers of the SBC use to govern the agencies we fund and cherish -- the convention allocation budget -- is already approved on a biennial basis.

If one follows the Executive Committee's argument to its logical end, the Southern Baptist Convention should meet every day, for this would be the only way to assure that we are not hierarchical.

The very existence of an Executive Committee recognizes there is a difference between governing the Convention through the approval of budgets and policies and administering the Convention's agencies during the time between Convention meetings.

If this distinction, that of governance and administration, is not maintained (and it is an appropriate distinction), it is difficult to understand how we can even have an Executive Committee or how the Convention could ever not be in session.

Hierarchy is introduced by reducing or eliminating the authority of the messengers to govern or by unnecessarily limiting the ability of messengers to address the Convention when the Convention meets. It is not introduced by adding 365 days between meetings.

As long as messengers to the Convention are truly able to govern, and the Executive Committee truly limits its activities to facilitating, administering, and otherwise carrying out the wishes of the Convention as expressed in their meetings and governing documents, no additional hierarchy is introduced by a return to biennial meetings.

Historic Baptist polity and lines of authority are not threatened by a return to biennial meetings.

**One bonus argument here. A move to a biennial meeting could actually improve the opportunity for Baptists to be involved in their Convention. In my own informal questioning of messengers at this year's SBC, I learned that many messengers are only able to attend intermittently because of cost. This change would enable smaller churches to save for two years to send their pastor to the convention. I will discuss this further in a concluding post on the topic, but, for now, I simply want to note that this change could actually increase attendance at meetings and allow a greater percentage of the churches of our Convention to participate.

Biennial Meetings Objection #2: Timely Consideration and Discussion

The second objection to biennial meetings is that, "The current annual meeting schedule of the Convention enables messengers the opportunity to facilitate timely consideration and discussion of the interests of the Convention."

Following a convention in which only 1 of 19 motions was referred to the messengers for debate or discussion, and only 30 minutes was allotted for introducing such motions, this is an interesting objection indeed!

If New Orleans is our model, eliminating a Convention meeting would eliminate 30 minutes of introducing motions and almost zero minutes of consideration and discussion of interests brought to the floor directly by the messengers and not by a pre-appointed committee.

To be sure, I am very much in favor of timely consideration and discussion of the interests of the Convention. With that said, I would like to make a few observations.

First, the election of officers in the odd-numbered years is already a perfunctory matter. Currently, as long as there is not a moral failure, we return in odd-numbered years to re-elect the president and the other elected officers to the second year of a two-year term. Why not just elect them to serve a two-year term?

Second, just take a look at the 2012 Book of Reports which includes the proceedings from Phoenix in 2011. It is a very thin document - especially after you extract the reports from the institutions which could simply be made available electronically without the need for a multi-million dollar meeting (I will explain my financial calculations in a later post).

Third, agency budget allocations are already approved on a two-year schedule. So, the real "interests of the Convention" -- how/why/where to invest the resources that God has entrusted to us -- are already a conversation that we have agreed to have once every two years.

Occasionally, there are other things to talk about, but they can usually wait. In those rare instances they cannot, our governing documents already make provision for a special-called meeting. If there is an issue worth a multi-million dollar meeting in the off years, we should call a special meeting. If there is not, we would be exercising wise stewardship by waiting another 12 months.

Fourth, in calling for a biennial meeting schedule, I assume that meeting in the even-numbered years would be best. This would continue to give the Convention of Great Commission Baptists an opportunity to speak with one voice on issues confronting our nation in the years in which we have significant national elections - i.e. Presidential elections and mid-term congressional elections.

In short, moving to a biennial meeting schedule does not limit our ability to engage in timely consideration and discussion of the interests of the Convention. There may be other factors that are limiting such disucssion, but such a charge cannot be laid at the feet of biennial meetings.

Indeed, if a biennial schedule enabled more messengers to attend and churches to be represented (and I believe that it would), a biennial schedule would actually allow for more messengers to take part in our Convention's "considerations and disucssions."

It is time for the timely consideration of biennial meetings.

Biennial Meetings Objection #1: What about Reporting?

Of the Executive Committee's four objections to adopting to a biennial meeting schedule, there is really only one that sounds insurmountable.

The Executive Committee writes, "The SBC Bylaws and Business and Financial Plan require the publication and presentation of annual ministry, financial, and budgetary reports." (emphasis added).

In this objection, our governing documents seem to be given an authority over the Convention that is inviolable. The implication of the statement seems to be that the documents simply cannot be changed. One wonders how a convention that used to meet Triennially ever came to have an annual meeting schedule.

We are Baptists, and the messengers to the Convention may amend their documents - period. The Convention has amended her governing documents in times past, and we may do so again if we determine this is the wise and prudent thing to do.

To be sure, the governing documents, as currently written, require the publication of reports, and they most certainly should. However, a biennial meeting schedule does not have to significantly change this requirement.

To accomodate a biennial meeting schedule, we could either 1) eliminate annual reports altogether (a bad idea) or 2) amend our governing documents to allow for reports that are made to churches, pastors, state conventions, and denominational leaders in the "off years" rather than directly to the Convention proper (not a bad idea at all).

The Executive Committee already receives reports from agency leaders on a regular basis; budget allocations are already made on a biennial basis, and agencies would continue to report as they currently do to the Executive Committee.

The only difference: in the off-years, agencies would report all of the same information to the Executive Committee, and those reports would be made available electronically and disseminated as widely as possible among those who associate with the SBC. The reports that would otherwise be given by agency heads on the floor of a convention could still be made to the Executive Committee and delivered, recorded, and made available to all SBC churches.

Arguably, more Baptists could hear from our agencies in the off years than in the years of the Convention!

In short, the reporting objection is a non-objection. If we can change the frequency of our meetings, we can also change the frequency and/or acceptable means of delivering reports.

To see how the amendments I proposed would allow for a biennial meeting while preserving a form of annual reporting in the "off years," you may read the amendments in their entirety here.

What Happened to the Biennial Motion at the New Orleans SBC?

To everyone who appreciates and understands the rationale for the amendments I introduced in New Orleans seeking a return to a biennial convention schedule, thank you for your encouragement, interest, prayers, and support.

If one meeting of the SBC every two years was sufficient to conduct the business of the Convention in the era of the horse and buggy, it seems a biennial meeting should be sufficient in the era of FaceBook, Twitter, and the world wide web.

Of course, we should not embrace biennial meetings simply because we can. We need a compelling reason to make such a change. Currently, there are nearly 7 billion compelling reasons to consider biennial meetings.

The Convention declared in 2010, along with the distinguished leaders who served on the Great Commission Task Force, that prioritizing the use of our resources for maximal effectiveness in fulfilling the Great Commission is deeply important to us and should impact the way we conduct the business of our Conventions and agencies.

Prioritizing access to the gospel and funding the advance of the gospel is not merely the stuff of convenient strategic planning, it is inherent to the gospel itself.

The call for biennial meetings is not an esoteric call for rethinking everything we do as Great Commission Baptists. It would actually change very little of what we do.

It would, however, give us an opportunity to invest millions - yes millions - more dollars in training pastors and missionaries and reaching our neighbors and the nations.

Any proposal that would allow us to deploy millions more in pursuing the very things we seek to accomplish through our cooperation deserves the consideration of our Convention.

Godly people can certainly disagree on implementing such a change, but we should not fear or avoid a discussion of its merits.

When the Committee on Order of Business referred my motion to the Executive Committee, they turned the motion over to the Committee that had already outlined its disagreement with biennial meetings following my motion requesting the study in 2010.

I attempted to ask for a floor debate, but the question was called very quickly in a rapid series of other motions that were, appropriately, referred to the Trustees of the agencies in question.

For motions dealing with with the governing documents of the Convention herself, the appropriate "Trustees" to consider the motion are not those of the Executive Committee but the messengers of the Convention directly.

My initial motions to amend our governing documents were in order and, as such, the default recommendation from the Committee on Order of Business should have been to the messengers, not the Executive Committee. We are still Baptists, are we not?

The problem with my motions was that they were regarded as neither wise nor or desirable by the Committee and were subsequently referred without the clear understanding of the Convention that a discussion could (and should) have taken place.

The Committee is simply supposed to determine whether motions are in order. The job of the messengers is to determine if they are wise. No where in the Constitution or Bylaws is the Executive Committee given authority to weigh these matters independently of the Convention herself.

The purview of the Executive Committee does not include protecting us from unwise decisions regarding amendments to our governing documents. The Constitution itself provides these protections by requiring an affirmative vote of a supermajority of the Convention messengers for two successive meetings in a row!

That is, rightly, a very tall order. This is all the protection we need.

I hope, next year, for an opportunity to have a family conversation regarding the wisdom or lack of wisdom in moving to biennial meetings.

If we can save and redeploy millions in the battle to reach billions without sacrificing transparency or sound business practices, the proposal deserves serious consideration by the people to whom God has entrusted this Convention - the messengers themselves.

Coming up next

In my next post, I will list and respond to the objections of the Executive Committee to biennial meetings as given in their response to a request for a financial study of the cost of Conventions in 2010.

Dear Christian: For the sake of our souls, let's talk; let's talk about giving.

Recently, I wrote a letter about my journey in the field of financial development and why the work of raising money for the best seminary in the world is a legitimate, gospel-centered work. Indeed it is an act of worship and discipleship. We cannot claim to be heirs of grace if we are unconcerned about growing in the grace of giving. The letter begins with the next paragraph.

Ten years ago, I began work as a fundraiser for a major research university. The cultural, entertainment, and professional opportunities available were fantastic, but a terrible thought haunted me day-by-day.

The funds I secured supported a school that often ignored the “universal” aspect of her mission. The truth that one God made everything and that we should pursue an understanding of His glory and absolute authority over all things was routinely dismissed as “small-minded.” As I simmered in the cauldron of a foolish and fickle culture enamored with worldly wisdom, the Lord reminded me that He is wisdom — period. If God could be foolish, His foolishness would surpass even the most ingenious worldly thought.

Over time, I arrived at a moral crisis of the first order. I regularly met Christians who invested more in growing a college athletics program or academic department than in fueling the advance of the gospel. The Lord showed me that seeking first His Kingdom meant no longer raising money for initiatives that did not advance, and sometimes undermined, the progress of the gospel. On the day I raised the largest gift in my career, a gift from a Southern Baptist, I was privately devastated. . . what a missed opportunity.

Ten years later, I have the tremendous privilege of raising support for the greatest seminary on the planet. And yet, not every Christian immediately sees it this way. I am frequently asked, “How do you do your job?” or, more directly, “How can you ask someone else for money?” I did everything possible to avoid these probing questions while raising money for a secular university. Today, I eagerly embrace them.

It is often said, “The most difficult topic to discuss in church is giving.” But, why should teaching about the grace of giving be entered upon tentatively when the essence of the gospel is that God gave His Son?

In 1 Corinthians 4:1–2, Paul urges the church, “Let a man so consider us, as servants of Christ and stewards of the mysteries of God. Moreover it is required in stewards that one be found faithful.” What a challenging admonition! We are responsible for our stewardship of the gospel.

Scripture reveals that our willingness and eagerness to give is not so much about giving as it is about the spiritual health of our hearts. Avoiding the issue of giving leaves us vulnerable to a major case of spiritual heart disease. The pastor’s God-given responsibility is to charge the flock of God to examine their hearts and be ready to give (1 Tim. 6:17–19). Pastor, challenge the flock! Christian, urge your pastor to exhort you to excel in the grace of investing for the global advance of the gospel.

Faithful stewardship of the gospel demands that we invest wisely – consistent with the priorities of Christ’s Kingdom and not those of this world. When people consider the gospel and its impact on giving, they will want to know where they can invest and exercise faithful stewardship of the resources God has entrusted to their care.

There are few places like Southeastern, a church-initiated ministry in which believers can invest and impact a variety of gospel-centered initiatives. Where else can a Christian give and realize an immediate return that multiplies into eternity through Christ-exalting alumni serving in so many meaningful ministries? Today, our alumni serve in churches, military and work-place chaplaincy, church plants, Christian education, counseling, reaching unreached people groups, Bible translation, campus ministry, pregnancy support services, and much more.

Over the next 15–20 years, despite the current status of our economy, we will witness the largest generational transfer of wealth in our nation’s history. As baby boomers consider the end-of-life implications for their assets, the tax and financial implications will be huge. Now is the time to be asking big, gospel-centered questions and dreaming big, gospel-centered dreams!

The question every Christian must consider is this: “How can I exercise faithful stewardship of the gospel?” As you ask this question, and as you consider others in your sphere of influence who should ask this question, please keep Southeastern in mind.

If you would like to read the rest of the letter, please visit http://www.sebts.edu/alumni/giving/default.aspx.

Love Your Kids: Discipline Them!

A couple of evenings ago, just about bedtime, Elizabeth did something she's been warned about several times over the past few months. She has known since the last incident that punishment, not a warning, would be forthcoming for a repeat offense.

As soon as she committed the offense, she knew what she had done and stopped immediately. Her eyes met mine with a look that said, "Daddy, please, please, please do not realize what I just did!"

I knew. . . . She knew that I knew.

All the way up the stairs to Elizabeth's bedroom, I was thinking of dozens of reasons to just ignore her offense and pretend it didn't happen. Did I really want to deal with this right at bed time?! I was tired and ready to relax. Then, the Spirit brought to mind two passages of Scripture.

First, I thought of Romans 1:28-9, where it says, in part, "God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper, being filled with all unrighteousness . . . ."

God does not give sinners over to unrighteousness after just one, two, or even several sins. He gives over those who declare that what is obviously sin is "good." God is so patient with sinners that some mistake His patience for a lack of concern for righteousness.

But, God's patience is for our repentance. Peter puts it this way, "The Lord is not slow about His promise, as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing for any to perish but for all to come to repentance." (2 Pet 3:9).

The next text that came to mind, almost simultaneously was Proverbs 3:12 where we read, "For whom the LORD loves He reproves, Even as a father corrects the son in whom he delights."
In that moment, as we walked up the stairs and Elizabeth stared intently into my eyes, I had a choice. I could reinforce Elizabeth's understanding that what she had done was wrong by following through with the punishment that had been promised, or I could risk giving her over - allowing her to think her daddy really does not mind whether she obeys or not.
 
Like a good father, God corrects his children. God's discipline is actually an expression of His patient love for us. He could simply destroy us, but He patiently corrects and leads to repentance.
 
So, here's the point: loving your kids does not mean sweeping their sins under the rug - even when you are exhausted. What a challenge!

Family Worship (Day 2): Colossians 1:3–8

Questions

According to v.5, what is the basis of a Christian’s faith in Christ Jesus and love for all the saints?

Where do we find true hope (v. 5)?

Who do you know who needs to “know” (v. 7) (realize/see/understand) that the gospel is the message that God offers grace to those who believe His son?

Worship in Song

Amazing Grace (My Chains Are Gone) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbe7OruLk8I

Prayer

Thank God for the true hope that we find in the message of the gospel that leads us to believe in the Son and love the brethren. Praise Him for being a gracious God and for giving His Spirit to enable Christians to bear His fruit and to love one another.